"The argument on Trout’s behalf isn’t all that complicated: he
provided the greater overall contribution to his team. Trout was
a much better defensive player than Cabrera, and a much better
base runner. And if Cabrera was the superior hitter, it wasn’t by
nearly as much as the triple crown statistics might suggest."

Silver started as a baseball sabermetrics guy, so he's going back
to his roots here after a long election season.

Trout's a better baserunner. Trout was safe on
49 of his 54 attempted steals. As a result, his baserunning
contributed 12 runs more than the average player, whereas
Cabrera's baserunning was about three runs worse than the
average player.

Trout's a better fielder. According to UZR (an
advanced fielding stat), Trout saved his team 11 runs on
defense while Cabrera cost his team 10 runs. That 21-run
difference basically nullifies the 22-run advantage that
Cabrera had over Trout from his 14 additional home runs.

Trout's just as clutch as Cabrera. Based on
RBI per opportunity, Cabrera was only a hair better than Trout
in the clutch.

Cabrera's numbers weren't all that great
historically. His stats in the Triple Crown categories
would have only been good enough for the Triple Crown in 2008
and 1972.

Trout's team had a better record than
Cabrera's. The Angles won 89 games, the Tigers won 88,
and if Trout had been in the majors all year, LA would have won
94 games.

The Cabrera vs. Trout debate has became a battleground between
traditionalists vs. statistician. We all know what side Silver's
on.